CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 13422246 Philippines 02/19/2013 05:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Okay, one question: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13422246 Is it possible that a mutation could produce new genes that would create a new species? Very unlikely and rare, but look up the "hopeful monster" theory. This is one of the few theories that would allow such a thing to occur. But normally no, not that quickly. Now, not quite what you are asking, but I did do a case study in a genetics class where in a the wild a population of guppies was separated, and each population had completely different food sources, environment etc. And after many generations, but only a few years, they had evolved into completely different species, meaning they could no longer successfully breed. As in a guppy from group A could not breed with a guppy from group B. And if you know what the definition of a species is, that is 2 completely different species. A prime example of speciation. Hopeful monster theory, that's really hopeful but have someone actually done that? And you might say, no because it requires time, like long enough for any man can actually experiment on it <- sounds like faith. Okay, it is a fact that guppies can evolve into different species and will come to a point that they won't be able to breed with their parent species, but that doesn't prove that guppies can become a different kind of animal like turning into a dog even if you give it millions of years. No proof for macro evolution there at all. |
Patrick Bateman User ID: 27920979 United States 02/19/2013 05:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Okay, one question: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13422246 Is it possible that a mutation could produce new genes that would create a new species? Very unlikely and rare, but look up the "hopeful monster" theory. This is one of the few theories that would allow such a thing to occur. But normally no, not that quickly. Now, not quite what you are asking, but I did do a case study in a genetics class where in a the wild a population of guppies was separated, and each population had completely different food sources, environment etc. And after many generations, but only a few years, they had evolved into completely different species, meaning they could no longer successfully breed. As in a guppy from group A could not breed with a guppy from group B. And if you know what the definition of a species is, that is 2 completely different species. A prime example of speciation. Hopeful monster theory, that's really hopeful but have someone actually done that? And you might say, no because it requires time, like long enough for any man can actually experiment on it <- sounds like faith. Okay, it is a fact that guppies can evolve into different species and will come to a point that they won't be able to breed with their parent species, but that doesn't prove that guppies can become a different kind of animal like turning into a dog even if you give it millions of years. No proof for macro evolution there at all. No, hopeful monster is just a theory that would explain some gaps in different parts of evolution, and how some species popped out of "no where", but is merely a theory. How it works is that some mutation caused by who knows what that occurs early on in the gene sequence would cause many differences from the parents to the offspring because when the mutation occurs early in the sequence it would affect numerous actual transformations. Now the hardest part for this new animal would be to somehow find a mate that underwent the exact same mutations in gene sequence. But at the same time, if the conditions were right for it to happen once, it could quite possibly happen more than once. I only looked for a second and couldn't find any good links, but here is an ok one, it does not really get into the science behind it, but does explain it some. If id dint have to wake up for class in less than 2 hours I would find you a better link. [link to harunyahya.com] And for your second point, when did I ever say anything about macro evolution? |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 08:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You are so wrong. There is not much point in arguing with the ignorant, no offense, but most of you are very misinformed on what evolution is, even by definition. Now this is not your fault, it is often due to propaganda, but none the less, you do not know what evolution is. Quoting: Patrick Bateman I am a biologist, and the most widely accepted definition of evolution, among biologists, is simply, "change with time". That is it. Most of you confuse evolution with Darwinism and much else, but the definition of change with time is fact. Due to certain conditions, climate, food sources, mutations, isolation of populations, variation, differentiation, adaptation, etc, certain genes are favored over others and passed down, and those genes that have the better survival rate live and then continued to be passed down, while those that are unfavorable often die out. Hence, change with time. This is not theory, but fact, witnessed both in lab and in the wild. I have restrained mostly from responding from this thread simply due to the lack of understanding of biology and the true meaning and definitions of evolution which many of you are confusing massively with Darwinism among other theories. But whatever, I understand that most of you will not even consider this, probably due to your personal beliefs and ideals you had before coming into this thread, among the closed mindedness to accept the truth rather than the misinformation that has been fed to you, but whatever. This is all I am going to say, and hopefully some of you will understand the true definitions and meanings of some of the words that many of you are confusing, and look more into the discourse that is causing such a problem for many of you. Either way, it does not matter to me, but I do hope some of you get something out of this. It is sad to see so many people in such an uproar simply because of a lack of communication and proper language and definitions. Now do not get me wrong. Even as a biologist I do not agree with all of the scientific theories, esp much of Darwinism, or that life began when lighting struck a primordial ooze a couple billion years ago, creating a simple bacteria that eventually led to all life on earth. I simply do not believe that. But evolution, by definition, the true one, not the one most of you are familiar with or have been taught, is true, and is fact. Wow Patrick, you had the time to write out that wall of spam, but couldn't simply include a scientific argument for Evolution? C'mon Mr. Biologist. Give us one testable or falsifiable hypothesis that supports Common Descent via Darwinian-style Evolution. "Evolution is change over time" Hahaha... is that supposed to be a scientific theory? As usual, this is what all Evolutionists are reduced to, because it's a statement that can be neither qualified, nor quantified, nor tested in any way that may falsify common descent. The question, Patrick, is what falsifiable or testable hypotheses lead you to believe "change over time" will produce new populations with new body plans as required by the evolutionary framework of common descent? Come on now, Mr. Biologist, don't be shy. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32069520 United States 02/19/2013 08:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Okay, one question: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13422246 Is it possible that a mutation could produce new genes that would create a new species? Very unlikely and rare, but look up the "hopeful monster" theory. This is one of the few theories that would allow such a thing to occur. But normally no, not that quickly. Now, not quite what you are asking, but I did do a case study in a genetics class where in a the wild a population of guppies was separated, and each population had completely different food sources, environment etc. And after many generations, but only a few years, they had evolved into completely different species, meaning they could no longer successfully breed. As in a guppy from group A could not breed with a guppy from group B. And if you know what the definition of a species is, that is 2 completely different species. A prime example of speciation. Hopeful monster theory, that's really hopeful but have someone actually done that? And you might say, no because it requires time, like long enough for any man can actually experiment on it <- sounds like faith. Okay, it is a fact that guppies can evolve into different species and will come to a point that they won't be able to breed with their parent species, but that doesn't prove that guppies can become a different kind of animal like turning into a dog even if you give it millions of years. No proof for macro evolution there at all. No, hopeful monster is just a theory that would explain some gaps in different parts of evolution, and how some species popped out of "no where", but is merely a theory. How it works is that some mutation caused by who knows what that occurs early on in the gene sequence would cause many differences from the parents to the offspring because when the mutation occurs early in the sequence it would affect numerous actual transformations. Now the hardest part for this new animal would be to somehow find a mate that underwent the exact same mutations in gene sequence. But at the same time, if the conditions were right for it to happen once, it could quite possibly happen more than once. I only looked for a second and couldn't find any good links, but here is an ok one, it does not really get into the science behind it, but does explain it some. If id dint have to wake up for class in less than 2 hours I would find you a better link. [link to harunyahya.com] And for your second point, when did I ever say anything about macro evolution? Just because they teach you something in the classrooms does not mean they are factually correct. It could change next year, 10, 50 years later. Most libtard professors don't like it if you challenge them. It happened to me before over nutrition crap. Turns out I was right anyway. Homo Sapiens are truly interesting if you compare them to rest of species in the world. It's as if we are not made for the environment... So... :Alienbitch: |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34737506 United Kingdom 02/19/2013 08:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Wow Patrick, you had the time to write out that wall of spam, but couldn't simply include a scientific argument for Evolution? C'mon Mr. Biologist. Give us one testable or falsifiable hypothesis that supports Common Descent via Darwinian-style Evolution. "Evolution is change over time" Hahaha... is that supposed to be a scientific theory? As usual, this is what all Evolutionists are reduced to, because it's a statement that can be neither qualified, nor quantified, nor tested in any way that may falsify common descent. The question, Patrick, is what falsifiable or testable hypotheses lead you to believe "change over time" will produce new populations with new body plans as required by the evolutionary framework of common descent? Come on now, Mr. Biologist, don't be shy. Here's a bit of light reading for you. If you'd like to read more or would like any help with some of the big words, let me know. [link to www.gate.net] [link to www.talkorigins.org] |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 09:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ^^^ See? Evilution indoctrination in universities are very common making it impossible for a student to question the theory entirely as a fraud. Of course they can debate what ever they want for as long as it is still billions of years from lala fairy tail land. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13422246 Lmao, that vid is your argument, come one, you can do better. I would hope anyways. Dude come to think of it, who taught you evilution? did your professor teach you something outside of that prison box? My "professor"? I have over 140 science credits from accredited universities. That explains it. It's unfortunate they trained you to view any fluctuation in biology as some never-ending Darwinian trajectory of evolution. What a sad abuse of science.... You see a mutation and think "Gee a buncha those in the right circumstances over millions of years will turn a deep-sea animal species into one that hops around in trees." Meanwhile the most pronounced cases of "change over time" we do see in the wild, have nothing to do with "random variations + natural" selection and never did. You've been indoctrinated into a flop theory mandated in a time when scientists believed mice spawned from dirty rags. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 09:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a bit of light reading for you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 If you'd like to read more or would like any help with some of the big words, let me know. [link to www.gate.net] [link to www.talkorigins.org] Oh another link dump by someone who can't make an argument. Here's some links back at you. Science Against Evolution [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” [link to www.trueorigin.org] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34737506 United Kingdom 02/19/2013 09:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a bit of light reading for you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 If you'd like to read more or would like any help with some of the big words, let me know. [link to www.gate.net] [link to www.talkorigins.org] Oh another link dump by someone who can't make an argument. Here's some links back at you. Science Against Evolution [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” [link to www.trueorigin.org] You read mine quickly... There's a few too many links in the first one for me to read but I've just flicked through the second and it's certainly not convinced me. Far too many straw man arguments to be taken seriously. Sorry. I'd happily take up the argument if I felt that you were actually taking on board what was being said and not just dismissing it out of hand as you have been doing. |
zgames User ID: 28475162 Denmark 02/19/2013 09:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I view evolution as something like this: There is no such thing as new time, time is just one big cycle, cycle that has balance between good and bad, when that cycle ends, result should be equal to: good - bad = 0, but I'm not sure if that's the case, doesn't matter actually, what matters is that ratio between now good and now bad is always changing. Good or bad is energy, so what really changes is just the energy, we are energy beings and we react differently to different energies. Imagine this, we live in a time when our energy is going to change to higher energy, higher frequency, if that is the case, you can see what happens with water when you put higher frequency, it changes in a split of a second! a.k.a evolution. now remember this - everything is energy beings, if energy increases so do all things change small proof: i hope this was posted before btw this is what all religions teach people to increase your own frequency |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 10:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a bit of light reading for you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 If you'd like to read more or would like any help with some of the big words, let me know. [link to www.gate.net] [link to www.talkorigins.org] Oh another link dump by someone who can't make an argument. Here's some links back at you. Science Against Evolution [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” [link to www.trueorigin.org] You read mine quickly... There's a few too many links in the first one for me to read but I've just flicked through the second and it's certainly not convinced me. Far too many straw man arguments to be taken seriously. Sorry. I'd happily take up the argument if I felt that you were actually taking on board what was being said and not just dismissing it out of hand as you have been doing. Gee, I've never read talkorigins before, considering it is the only link Evo's EVER post, considering they are apparently unable to make a single argument of their own. You probably don't even understand half of the entries in talkorigins, which is itself a laughable pro-darwin Blog, with many of its references being from the 1980's TrueOrigins (which uses much more current scientific literature for reference) and other blogs have gone through their claims point by point and challenged or refuted them, but that is beside the point. The POINT is, can you muster a single scientific argument, testable or falsifiable hypothesis, in defense of Evolution? No, you can't. "You're not convinced" Obviously you're not convinced and won't be by your own lack of any scientific argument, because your belief in Evolution is religiously motivated, not scientific. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 10:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb Genetics and Molecular Biology 2008 This paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can be inherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology. Many biologists feel that the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm that was constructed during the 1930s and 1940s (Mayr, 1982) and has dominated Western views of evolution for the last 60 years are crumbling, and that the construction of a new evolutionary paradigm is underway. cont... [link to www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com] Yes everything you've been told is a "fact" about Darwinian style Evolution is turning out to be wrong and based on assumptions rather than facts, and in general reflects a rather naive view of biology, (based on a time when scientists believed mice spawned from dirty rags) Don't worry though, Evolution must still be True. lol |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 10:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and the first rule of adaptive evolution The Quarterly Review of Biology 2010 Michael Behe Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to examine the molecular changes produced by the underlying mutation in order to assess whether a given adaptation is best considered as a gain, loss, or modification of function. Although that was once impossible, the advance of molecular biology in the past half century has made it feasible. In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades. I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the prominence of such mutations. [link to www.jstor.org] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34737506 United Kingdom 02/19/2013 11:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a bit of light reading for you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 If you'd like to read more or would like any help with some of the big words, let me know. [link to www.gate.net] [link to www.talkorigins.org] Oh another link dump by someone who can't make an argument. Here's some links back at you. Science Against Evolution [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” [link to www.trueorigin.org] You read mine quickly... There's a few too many links in the first one for me to read but I've just flicked through the second and it's certainly not convinced me. Far too many straw man arguments to be taken seriously. Sorry. I'd happily take up the argument if I felt that you were actually taking on board what was being said and not just dismissing it out of hand as you have been doing. Gee, I've never read talkorigins before, considering it is the only link Evo's EVER post, considering they are apparently unable to make a single argument of their own. You probably don't even understand half of the entries in talkorigins, which is itself a laughable pro-darwin Blog, with many of its references being from the 1980's TrueOrigins (which uses much more current scientific literature for reference) and other blogs have gone through their claims point by point and challenged or refuted them, but that is beside the point. The POINT is, can you muster a single scientific argument, testable or falsifiable hypothesis, in defense of Evolution? No, you can't. "You're not convinced" Obviously you're not convinced and won't be by your own lack of any scientific argument, because your belief in Evolution is religiously motivated, not scientific. Hmm, you're not in the least bit patronising are you? Not a godly trait and generally a sign of an inflated and unsubstantiated ego. And just fyi, I understand the information very well, thank you. You also seem to enjoy putting words into other people's mouths and definitely enjoy the sound of your own voice (if you could hear it from someone else's ears though you wouldn't be very impressed). It's quite amusing that you mention some of those articles being from the 1980's. Doesn't that seem slightly ironic when you are essentially referencing material from a couple of thousand years or so ago? Once again, I very much doubt whether you've taken any of the information in those articles on board and actually considered them in any scientific way at all. Rather you've just dismissed them offhand as already being debunked. Now in some respects that's good but what you've failed to do (and this is similar to what you ask from me) is to actually show how they've been debunked. If it's in any way similar to the one you posted earlier then I'm afraid it's void. However, evolution is real, provable and testable. There's a beautiful study about blue mussels and the Asian-shore crab which was published a few years ago which shows evolution in action over a relatively short period of time. I'll provide a link to a synopsis if you wish. However regardless of what anyone posts in here in the support of evolution, you will bash it in any way you can but thankfully not in a way that would have anyone with scientific knowledge any cause for concern. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34737506 United Kingdom 02/19/2013 11:08 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519 Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb Genetics and Molecular Biology 2008 This paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can be inherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology. Many biologists feel that the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm that was constructed during the 1930s and 1940s (Mayr, 1982) and has dominated Western views of evolution for the last 60 years are crumbling, and that the construction of a new evolutionary paradigm is underway. cont... [link to www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com] Yes everything you've been told is a "fact" about Darwinian style Evolution is turning out to be wrong and based on assumptions rather than facts, and in general reflects a rather naive view of biology, (based on a time when scientists believed mice spawned from dirty rags) Don't worry though, Evolution must still be True. lol You seem to have spectacularly missed the point that being a science, evolution is always being challenged and subject to change. Unlike your stone tablets, the understanding of evolution will always change until it's finally proven beyond any doubt. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34737506 United Kingdom 02/19/2013 11:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and the first rule of adaptive evolution Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519 The Quarterly Review of Biology 2010 Michael Behe Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to examine the molecular changes produced by the underlying mutation in order to assess whether a given adaptation is best considered as a gain, loss, or modification of function. Although that was once impossible, the advance of molecular biology in the past half century has made it feasible. In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades. I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the prominence of such mutations. [link to www.jstor.org] So are you attacking the current theories surrounding evolution or just Darwin's? |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 11:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 11:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You seem to have spectacularly missed the point that being a science, evolution is always being challenged and subject to change. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 evolution is religious-philosophical anti-science, mandated in a time when the experts thought mice spawned from dirty rags. evolution persists in spite of data, not because of it. continuously stacking on untestable, non-falsifiable ad-hoc hypotheses does not lend support to a theory. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 11:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34737506 United Kingdom 02/19/2013 11:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34737506 United Kingdom 02/19/2013 11:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You seem to have spectacularly missed the point that being a science, evolution is always being challenged and subject to change. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 evolution is religious-philosophical anti-science, mandated in a time when the experts thought mice spawned from dirty rags. evolution persists in spite of data, not because of it. continuously stacking on untestable, non-falsifiable ad-hoc hypotheses does not lend support to a theory. In your mind and the minds of your ilk only. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24008048 United States 02/19/2013 11:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | As for HUMANS? Genetic Manipulation by the "hands" others. for a purpose. or not? but probably a purpose. Let's just hope it's not arbitrary... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34737506 United Kingdom 02/19/2013 11:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So are you attacking the current theories surrounding evolution or just Darwin's? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 Tell me the theory of evolution (the origin of species) that you think is accurate. Do you even know what you believe? Nope. I know what I know though. Evolution is the constant changing of an organism over several generations to best fit its environment. To put it in its simplest form. If you're asking about Darwin's book, that was a scientific argument in support of an evolutionary framework, elements of which have not stood the test of time but the majority has as the basic tenets are sound. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 11:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Check out the blue mussels ans crabs I mentioned earlier. I'll allow you to find it yourself too. Post the link, and tell us why you think it is evidence for Evolution. (unless you don't know why) |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 12:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Evolution is the constant changing of an organism over several generations Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 That's called Biology. Time doesn't change organisms into fundamentally different organisms above the species level, or add any novel functional elements that the species did not already possess. Species have built in measure of adaptability(called phenotypic plasticity) that is directly induced by environmental stresses. (has nothing to do with random variations that are naturally selected) This adaptability is very limited and does not add any new functional information that the organism did not already possess. It simply activates and deactivates existing functions. If you're asking about Darwin's book, that was a scientific argument in support of an evolutionary framework, elements of which have not stood the test of time but the majority has as the basic tenets are sound. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 Which parts are sound? That life exists and changes over time? Wow, people only knew that 4000 years ago. What is your scientific, empirical basis for believing all species descended from a collective common ancestor? Any time you're ready... |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 12:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You seem to have spectacularly missed the point that being a science, evolution is always being challenged and subject to change. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 evolution is religious-philosophical anti-science, mandated in a time when the experts thought mice spawned from dirty rags. evolution persists in spite of data, not because of it. continuously stacking on untestable, non-falsifiable ad-hoc hypotheses does not lend support to a theory. In your mind and the minds of your ilk only. Apparently yours as well, since you seem completely incapable of presenting a scientific argument for it. Your motivations are purely philosophical and religious, not scientific. |
John Kimble User ID: 1516308 Netherlands 02/19/2013 12:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 01:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Apparently yours as well, since you seem completely incapable of presenting a scientific argument for it. Your motivations are purely philosophical and religious, not scientific. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519 And so are your believes so why do you care? Obviously, because Creation is not a government mandated "scientific truth" about our origins, force-fed to grade school children through the school system. Evolution is such a crap non-theory. Nobody here can even hope to defend it scientifically. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 01:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.youtube.com] Great Presentation How geology confirms a young age of the earth. Some of the basic tenets of time interpretation -- both physical and geological -- and the foundational geologic features are reviewed and re--explained in a young earth framework, revealing the many flaws of the millions--of--years interpretations and the fact that it is only the interpretation of the same facts by different paradigms that has created the great division between science and Christianity. Presented by Dr Emil Silvestru - [link to creation.com] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 34737506 United Kingdom 02/19/2013 01:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Evolution is the constant changing of an organism over several generations Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 That's called Biology. Time doesn't change organisms into fundamentally different organisms above the species level, or add any novel functional elements that the species did not already possess. Species have built in measure of adaptability(called phenotypic plasticity) that is directly induced by environmental stresses. (has nothing to do with random variations that are naturally selected) This adaptability is very limited and does not add any new functional information that the organism did not already possess. It simply activates and deactivates existing functions. If you're asking about Darwin's book, that was a scientific argument in support of an evolutionary framework, elements of which have not stood the test of time but the majority has as the basic tenets are sound. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34737506 Which parts are sound? That life exists and changes over time? Wow, people only knew that 4000 years ago. What is your scientific, empirical basis for believing all species descended from a collective common ancestor? Any time you're ready... Ok, I'll bite. There's several incidences of evidence that I would cite, all leading towards the same conclusion. I'll list them in no particular order for you. RNA coding pre amino-acid formation. The good old DNA coding being a common factor in pretty much every organism. Pseudogenes, you know, shared errors. The Vit C one's always a decent example of how only simians don't produce their own vit C but other mammals do. Why's that? The pharyngula stage in embryonic development. Why do we all look the same at that stage? Chromosomal fusion, in particular the fused chimpanzee chromosomes found in humans. But what I suppose started it with me is convergence and if you put that with all of the other evidence it's pretty powerful stuff. Now I've done my bit, time for you to do yours. Firstly you have to understand that proving something by the dis-proof of something else is impossible. Do you agree? If you do and you should, please show me proof of a creator. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 23223519 United States 02/19/2013 01:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |